San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Dave: You have the courage of a lion. I'm not entirely sure about your sense of self-preservation, but I would strongly advocating bunkering in and getting ready for the cannonade that's about to follow from the female posters.

Wow. Do you think that guy's been toasted by a woman once or twice?

The level of detail in that theory is quite impressive.

Oh my, yes - I'd take the over on the once or twice. Part of the problem with his theory is its presentation. It's over the top. But... try to read past some of that and you'll see some underlying truths. Again, I don't advocate Ladder Theory as a Universal Explanation for how men and women interact - by a long shot. But, you have to admit that there's more truth to it than most would like to admit.

Actually, Allan, I forgot (it's been years since I've been to the Ladder Theory site), but he addresses this issue here:

http://www.laddertheory.com/commoncritic...

I feel sorry for this guy - and now I feel sorry for men in general. You guys are, in effect, slaves to one portion of your body. Imagine how that one body part has so much control over your life, what you do and ruling and dictating the goal of climbing the ladder and positioning yourself up the ladder when the only purpose would be to get laid. I hope for the sake of the male gender that his theories are wrong.

JP: This is a little crass, but it makes the point excellently: Why do all men name their dicks?

Because they don't want a complete stranger making 95% of their decisions!

Reminds me of a very angry and somewhat incapacitated version of Desmond Morris.

http://www.pronto.com/compare/human-anim...

Feel free to feel sorry for this guy, but please don't attribute his experiences to all men, and thereby feel sorry for all men, simply because you read an online article. I'm hoping you're not serious about that stance.

pabloesqobar - I take generalizations w/the understanding there are exceptions. I already qualified my statement when I said "in general."

Allan - reminds me of the joke:

"Why do women have no brains?"
"They don't have a penis to put them in."

umm. ladder theory is true.

not 2/3

it's pretty much spot on.

I cannot even see how it is perceived as remotely sad or bitter? it just seems like a funny true description of life as it is lived. I was a cuddle bitch myself for years and I didn't even know it.

evidently this theory sprung from the opening lines of WHEN HARRY MET SALLY...

he does note that there is a separate hell for married people, but doesn't describe or reference it. ladder theory doesn't apply in marriage, and probably some diff. forms of male-female friendships are possible. maybe. I don't know. if someone could point me toward the comparable unifying theory for marriage, would be appreciated.

huh -- here's an interesting Christian perspective on the ladder, from a serious thoughtful christian dude who seems to believe in the ladder and has clearly thought about it a long time:

http://www.ochuk.com/?p=935

JP: You win the "Coke Zero Through the Nose Award" for the evening! Too funny.

Its funny how much friction this thread has generated, showing that the War Between the Sexes is alive and well.

As Dave pointed out, the Ladder Theory author is pretty caustic and somewhat bitter, but its hard to argue against him. I've had some experiences over the years with women that still mystify me to this day, mainly along the lines of why on earth would they put up with my shit and for so long.

Okay, I finally made my way through the Ladder Theory. Oddly enough, I tend to agree with him, with a couple of exceptions:

1. Quote from the "Friends With Benefits: portion of Ladder Theory:

That being said, usually women are more interested in long-term relationships than men, and consent to this form of relationship because there is ladder disparity in favor of the male.

I believe women consent to this relationship when the disparity is in her favor (she's in the power position), because she's using him as an in-betweener -- someone she uses for physical affection/sex until something better comes along.

2. He states he's not bitter, but it's pretty obvious he's been the CB on a number of occasions. Still, this doesn't discount his perspective entirely.

Other than that, like it or not, I'd say he's pretty much hit the nail on the head. ;)

I had the same questions about how marriage would be placed into the theory. I guess even the Ladder theory guy knows it is sacred... or that he would be car bombed if he told the truth. Seems what is wrong with marriage to a large degree is that pressures around ladder behavior don't mitigate easily, if at all.

Anyway here is some related reading about marriage. http://members.shaw.ca/eye-openers/marri...

Summed up: "Marriage is an unnatural act that is socially desirable."

My favorite quote from the bottom: "A bachelor is a selfish, undeserving guy who has cheated some woman out of a divorce." - Don Quinn

The way that Cosmopolitan (and other women's magazines) advertise, dissect and analyze men and relationships and promote "how to get a man"-- this "Ladder Theory" simply does the same for men. I am surprised there aren't some cute little quizzes for men to determine which ladder they are on.

I think an interesting question to anyone who was ever married at least once, would be, Whether or not you married the wrong person do you wish you never had gotten married to anyone? If you had it to do again would you probably marry or at least form a bond that seemed unbreakable for a period of time, or never marry or form that bond? I think most would say they would probably marry. Not sure, but I think most divoriced people do marry again. Does that mean that as awful as it can be, it is better than the alternative for most mortals? Maybe feeling joined at the hip and haveing sex has as more value in human experience(peak experience?) then having just the sex. Was anything really memorable or 'peak" about the "flings" or will it be the next time? Maybe for some people. I think ladder theory would say not, because if it were that easy to be casual the person was not that high up your ladder. In other words if you haven't been in a commited relationship IE something like marriage than you are on the lower rungs.

if i could go back and tell young scaredycat what was coming, one, he wouldn't believe me, two, he wouldn't care. we live in the moment as who we are. the old idiot is as idiotic in his way as the young idiot. no wisdom is gained. the old are as stupid as the young.

These are good questions. I think that most humans suffer from "The Grass is Always Greener" syndrome - for lack of a better way of putting it. It's just part of human nature and, to some extent, why we have advanced so far as a species. We don't like to accept things as they are. But clearly it's a double-edged sword.

Intellectually I understand that there are great things about marriage and kids. People aren't completely nuts - marriage and kids wouldn't be so popular if there weren't tangible benefits to each. The issue is what you have to give up to get these benefits and that's where people diverge in their outlooks. Personally, I've always been quite content living the single life. 50 years ago, I'd probably be married with kids and partially miserable based on my internal wiring. But social pressures would likely have worn me down back in those days. Today, the social pressure to get married and have kids is greatly reduced, particularly in large, cosmopolitan cities. So, it's much easier for me (and others) to take a pass. Also, frankly, attitudes about sex, etc. are far more liberal today, again making it easier to remain single.

I think a lot of people reach a point in their lives where they feel "something is missing," and marriage is their attempt at a solution. Then after marriage, having children is the solution after "something is STILL missing." And then when they find that they are STILL not happy after marriage and kids - although certainly certain aspects of marriage and kids have produced some happiness units - they sit back and say, "Shit, I'd like to be single again," and the process repeats itself.

It's a cliche, but the only thing that can really make anyone happy is themselves - inner contentment. As soon as you start looking outside yourself for "solutions" to contentment issues (re: spouse, kids, etc.), you start down a very murky path.

I agree.

It the past, the good old boys' club was more important for social advancement and you had to conform to make it. Now people are more mobile and they often move far away from their parents, family and friends.

That's very well said. I call it happiness from within.

Ideally, you don't need your kids to make you proud. You don't need your wife or gf to make you look good. You don't need the church to give you spiritual enlightenment.

When people start bragging about the accomplishment of their kids, or the good deeds of their churches, etc... that's when you know that "something is missing."

I agree to the contentment issue and that either way, being single or married, is not make or break deal.Isolation beyond ones tolerances would probably be as grim as a hate filled marriage with kids. But you don't have to marry to avoid that, as you know.

Spontaneity is the biggest tradeoff I have made to be married. I am not talking about the freedom to be a player, but just to do what I want or nothing at all, when I feel like it. You have to direct your creativity and entertainment interests to things that are compatible with family or they pay a price. If your interest and other conditions don't allow for this it's bad news.

I give each individual the credit of being able able to figure out if marriage and family life or single living is complimentary to their own existence and conscience, or not. Sometimes the process of figuring it out is an unaswered life long experience and sometimes people seem to just get it right quickly and there is everything in between.Hopefully we don't have a vasectomy or a brood of rugrats or both, before we figure it out.

Yes, I call this the Flexibility vs. Family Dichotomy. Unless you're one seriously wealthy sonofabitch with a VERY understanding spouse and kids (well below 1% of the population), you simply can't have both. You must choose one (largely) at the expense of the other.

Flexibility = spontaneity, adventure, etc.
Family = responsibility, stability, etc.

I've chosen Flexibility because it suits me. I'm sure there are plenty of folks happy with Family. What I have found, however, is that there are a LOT of men who want Flexibility, but are stuck in Family (even though they enjoy certain aspects of the latter) as a result of choices they made prior to being fully-informed on the alternatives.

I can’t believe the Ladder Theory is being discussed on Piggington. Some fun thoughts on the theory based on discussions with friends.

The ladder theory is really a glimpse into a larger complex theory, analogous to Newtons rudimentary understanding of gravity as a starting point towards understanding general relativity. Let’s start with the women ladders. First, the good ladder is really composed of many ladders inextricably joined together, with each ladder representing a specific need. The male brain, because of its primitive state, is unable to discern the entire ladder bundle, and only sees the good ladder. Sorry boys, no free ride. Pioneers like radio personality Tom Leykis makes a living explaining the mechanics of ladder theory via the tenets of Leykis 101, but also attempts to take it one step farther by devising innovative techniques to detach the good ladder from the bundle in order to achieve the ultimate goal of a booty call. He tries to achieve this by maximizing disparity – exhibit wealth, induce low self-esteem, show no interest, as well as be entertaining.

Men also have two ladders as well, not one. Unlike the parallel ladder system of females, mens ladders are vertical. The upper ladder is where potential long term partners are placed, but one must ascend the lower ladder to its apex in order to have a shot at reaching the upper ladder. Whereas the lower ladder hierarchy is determined by (60% looks, 40% willingness, and 10% misc), many men make the fatal mistake of assigning no further criteria to reach the upper ladder. In effect, these men marry for beauty. The result is typically a bad union with many ending in divorce. The marriages that last are usually a result of pure luck in selecting the right mate since most men don’t know what they were doing, me included. On a serious note, the correct criteria for the upper ladder should be reallocated to 40% looks and 60% cool chick factor. I define the cool chick factor as a loose compilation of attributes that includes among other things, the ability to handle extreme adversity with calmness (grit), the willingness to sacrifice without hesitation, no sense of entitlement no matter how much wealth or social status is accumulated, a positive easy going attitude unconcerned with minor dislikes (i.e. no honey do list or nagging), and a continual awareness not to take their mate for granted. Not sure if I articulated this point clearly, but this kind of rare woman can be guaranteed their partners will love and cherish them forever, even after the looks fade. It is difficult to identify these women as people change continuously throughout their life. The person you met 20 yrs ago is as different 10 yrs ago as she is today.

I fully understand the disdain for marriage by men due to its destructive nature upon failure. Like many, I support the marriage certificate as a symbolic document used for public declaration of mutual love and commitment. There should be very limited legal consequences with the exception of child support. Aside from this detail, the issue really boils down to the pros and cons of an uncommitted versus a committed relationship. Sure it’s great to have many partners and the conversations may be engaging, but this can also get boring over time, and unfulfillng especially as one gets older. The one thing that makes life tolerable is intimacy and I don’t believe it’s possible to build real and ever increasing intimacy unless you are in a committed relationship. Do men need or want intimacy? Probably not and everyone is wired differently, but once truly experienced, there is no substitute imo, similar to the unconditional love one feels for their children, or the brotherhood formed by soldiers who face death together in the battlefield. My vote goes on the committed relationship side.

Like all things considered lucky I think having the "cool girl" as your partner requires preparation and an at least marginally directed willfullness to meet her. Either your upbringing preps you, you do it yourself or both.Even if you are wired in favor of committed relationships, you can not meet the "right" person if you can not be the "right" person and also protect your independence and faculties to chose until the right one comes along. The right one would be someone with mutuality of skills, will and conviction ..and be at least... what was it... at least 40% or at least 60% hot? It helps to have a couple of interests in common.

Another thought Dave,
100 years ago you might have wanted or needed to have kids for the economic benefit.Children and adult children sustained the older generations economically with labor, shared income and geriatric care, all at the familial level.

I know that currently in the most developed countries, besides being bundles of joy, kids are mostly an economic liability, but it hasn't always been that way. Even though it would probably be true that professionals such as yourself historically did not need children for support, it could be much harder to skip out.